State of the Union

[shinerbock]

I would absolutely love to debate the Katrina situation with you. Would you like to? However, if I'm gonna get into a debate, I'd appreciate it if people would reference better sources than Kanye West. I just don't like getting into arguments where valid points are overshadowed by regurgitated rhetoric and catch phrases. For example, a common type argument on Bill Maher or something...

Conservative guest: "Well the Democrats on the SIC had equal access to the large majority of what our agencies used in making its reports regarding Iraq. We had the same information from British, Israeli agencies. We had defected nuclear scientists who described in detail the workings of Iraq's weapons programs."
(silence from audience)

Liberal guest: "Bush lied, people died!"
(roaring applause, shouts of "ohhhhh" and "you told him!")

If anyone would like to have an intelligent discussion on Katrina and the federal government's responsibility and role in relief, I'd be happy to.

[Little32]

Similarly, your response ignored the very pertinent question about the disparity between the resources that we are spending in say Iraq--in the billions on a daily basis--to rebuild their infrastructure, and the monies that the federal government has put into New Orleans as the result of Hurricane Katrina. Also, implicit in that criticism, is a question about the disparity in terms of the distribution of the funding that has been committed both on the federal and local level and which communities are benefiting from that funding. You focused instead on the brief mention of Kanye and had a knee-jerk response to that.

Additionally, I find very problematic that one solution that you offered to the situation in NO is to go to Mardi Gras and spend money. The idea that the solution to these major catastrophes that hit this nation is for Americans to consume at greater rates is, in a word, disturbing. I found the idea equally problematic when George Dubya, after the World Trade Center attack, suggested that the most appropriate and useful response of the American public is to spend money. Of course, that is an ideological debate.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I would absolutely love to debate the Katrina situation with you. Would you like to? However, if I'm gonna get into a debate, I'd appreciate it if people would reference better sources than Kanye West. I just don't like getting into arguments where valid points are overshadowed by regurgitated rhetoric and catch phrases. For example, a common type argument on Bill Maher or something...

Conservative guest: "Well the Democrats on the SIC had equal access to the large majority of what our agencies used in making its reports regarding Iraq. We had the same information from British, Israeli agencies. We had defected nuclear scientists who described in detail the workings of Iraq's weapons programs."
(silence from audience)

Liberal guest: "Bush lied, people died!"
(roaring applause, shouts of "ohhhhh" and "you told him!")

If anyone would like to have an intelligent discussion on Katrina and the federal government's responsibility and role in relief, I'd be happy to.

[shinerbock]

That response was to get back into the argument. I was attempting to address any of your concerns.

On the disparity between Iraq and New Orleans;

Obviously the war in Iraq began prior to the destruction in New Orleans. The federal government has allocated 12 billion to Louisiana alone, so I have a tough time believing that the federal government is ignoring the problem. Now, how the money is being used and the speed at which it is allocated is information I'm not privy to, and i doubt many on this board are. Wars cost incredible amounts of money. If you have a problem with the Iraq war and how much it is costing, I think that is a legitimate concern, despite my disagreement with your position. However, I don't think one has anything to do with the other. We're in Iraq, right or wrong, and we have to spend money on it. Should we have instead pulled out following Katrina and diverted the funding? I think rational people already know the answer to that.

Other issues:

Many question why the city hasn't fully been rebuilt. Having been back to New Orleans on several occasions since the storm, there is obviously a lot of rebuilding left to take place. However, progress is obvious as well. Its not as simple as saying "Alright, tomorrow we're going to start on everything." First, it isn't the federal government's responsibility to go in and start rebuilding everything that was damaged. Not only is it not their responsibility, it isn't their role to take. Much of the low income housing that was destroyed are issues for the city and state, who will have to decide how to go about rebuilding, if they are to rebuild. Also, many of the people in NO obviously haven't returned, making it especially difficult to figure out what to do. Should the federal government just start rebuilding people's homes for them? What about issues with insurance payouts? People who try to make the solution to this problem seem simple are far removed from the situation.

My personal problem is the sense of entitlement people have regarding this situation. I have a problem that people living in government housing are demanding that their houses be rebuilt. It confuses me that people point to the faster cleanup from other hurricanes, but also fail to mention that much of that relief was the result of first party insurance claims. Obviously FEMA could have been better, but so could Nagin and Louisiana. The citizens of New Orleans should not depend on the government for their complete safety. At some point you must take responsibility for yourself, your family, and your property, as so many others in Mississippi and LA did do. Of my three friends who had their homes completely destroyed (2 in NO, one on Bay St. Louis), all have received insurance pay outs and have either rebuilt or bought property elsewhere. They are equally tired of hearing people complain about the governments inaction. I believe the city at some point will approach its original stature. Until then, I think people need to take personal responsibility and have some measure of patience with the process. Questioning the government is fine (especially when it is the city or state government, seeing as they'll make most of the decisions), but when you begin demanding compassion and charity, people begin to have a problem with it. It may be that we just have completely different views on what the government should do. However, I'm one who believes it is not the government's responsibility to look after my affairs.

[pinkies up]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Wow, Kanye. I think I'll start another SOTU thread where people who are semi-informed about government can post. You guys might want to stay over here...

Ummm. Why don't you go somewhere else. After all, you are imposing on OUR message board.

Thanks!

[Wonderful1908]

Why???? I mean this is why I don't go visit the "other" boards!

[Honeykiss1974]

Shinerbock, I'm glad that your friends were satisfied with their insurance payouts, but believe you me there are PLENTY more that are not, hence the lawsuits against many insurers (and Statefarm having to finally be forced to pay what they should have in the first place instead of trying to shuck people with the "flood damage" bit - but I digress).

Every income and skill evel is needed in NO, not just those that are well off. I can TOTALLY understand that before you can just start bulldozing private property, you do need to track down the owner and etc. (although about 2 years ago, our Congress did pass some very LOOSE eminient domain laws so there are some options there) but in regards to public housing their is no one to check with but....themselves.

However, I wonder is the economic base there because it doesn't do anyone a bit of good to come back to some nice new housing but no place to work (as before) - although I know that my company is back and up and running in NO and have jobs available but there is no one there to fill these types of positions.

Hope this makes sense 'cause I am typing with one contact lens!

[Little32]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I think rational people already know the answer to that.

There you go constructing a rational/irrational, informed/uninformed dichotomy again. A distinction which automatically attributes more value to the opinions of the "rational" and the "informed" (i.e. people who think like you). Those kinds of dichotomies just are not useful in any situation where resolution is the goal.

How can we even begin to discuss an issue when your very language makes it clear that you don't recognize value in what I have to say because it might different from what you believe. Never once, have I said that you were irrational or uninformed. I recognize your right to believe what and how you believe, and I recognize that your beliefs are grounded in what you hold to be sound logic.

Honestly, I don't want to debate with you. I really think that the Katrina issue has been rehashed ad nauseam on this board and one more debate isn't going to change anyone's mind, especially if those engaged in the debate believe so firmly in the rightness and "rationality" of their stance.

[shinerbock]

Little, I really think you pulled out a rather small piece of what I wrote and made it into something its not. I didn't intend to make it a dichotomy of people who see things like I do and everybody else. I figured most people would agree that pulling out of Iraq and diverting all the money to Katrina immediately after the storm would spell disaster. If you think we should have done that, I find that very interesting and would love to hear more. However, I imagine you concur with me at least on that point.

Honey, there very well may be plenty of issues with insurance pay outs. I know that comes with just about any major storm. To be fair to the insurance companies, I think the devastation is going to be hard to sort through, and given the amount of claims may take a while to sort out. I don't really know much about how bad the problems are with that, so it could be an issue to be addressed (although I wouldn't know where to start addressing it).

Pinkies, while I tend to dislike you, I apologize for writing on your thread. I usually just look at new posts, and often miss where the thread was originally posted.

[pinkies up]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Little, I really think you pulled out a rather small piece of what I wrote and made it into something its not. I didn't intend to make it a dichotomy of people who see things like I do and everybody else. I figured most people would agree that pulling out of Iraq and diverting all the money to Katrina immediately after the storm would spell disaster. If you think we should have done that, I find that very interesting and would love to hear more. However, I imagine you concur with me at least on that point.

Honey, there very well may be plenty of issues with insurance pay outs. I know that comes with just about any major storm. To be fair to the insurance companies, I think the devastation is going to be hard to sort through, and given the amount of claims may take a while to sort out. I don't really know much about how bad the problems are with that, so it could be an issue to be addressed (although I wouldn't know where to start addressing it).

Pinkies, while I tend to dislike you, I apologize for writing on your thread. I usually just look at new posts, and often miss where the thread was originally posted.

Hey, I'm an AKA. I'm used to being "disliked". Seriously, it's apparent that you're a Dubya fan. He can't read either. Toodles

[shinerbock]

Are AKA's generally disliked or something? Must be an inside deal. I can read pretty well, and I imagine W can as well. You know, HBS and all.